September 2016 LSAT Section 1 Question 17

Politician: Over the next decade, our city will be replacing all of its street signs with signs that are designed for...

Masada on April 10, 2020

why c

I got the answer right because it was the only one that seemed right but why? how is this question relevant? I read the response you put for the other discussion however did not understand it. Also I wanted to ask, for these types of questions are the questions supposed to support or oppose the argument? thank you!

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

BenMingov on April 10, 2020

Hi Masada, thanks for the question!

These questions are quite rare. They are neither supposed to support nor oppose. The idea is that depending on the answers in response to the answer choices; extreme answers on either end should either support or oppose.

Imagine the argument says this:

Masada will order the chocolate cake because of her dessert preferences.

Which one of the following would most useful in evaluating the argument?

A) Does Masada like chocolate? (Two extreme answer choices) Yes and No. If Yes, then the argument is strengthened. If No, then the argument is weakened.

This would be the correct answer choice.

B) Did Masada have a steak for her main course? Yes and No. If Yes, this doesn't strengthen or weaken because it doesn't impact the argument. Same with if no.

Going back to the example.

If the town usually replaces 100% of the street signs annually, then why is this a waste of money. If the town usually replaces 0% of the street signs annually, then this would be a waste of money.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Masada on April 21, 2020

Thank you so much Ben this really helps!

guibrasil1993@gmail.com on May 23, 2021

Can you please explain why B is wrong in depth? I had a hard time understanding this question.

Thanks

Guilherme

Emil-Kunkin on May 11, 2023

Hi, the crux of the issue is whether the signs are necessary. C gets to this exactly, if the signs were already going to be replaced then we might as well get better ones.

B doesn't really matter. If we are incessantly replacing signs who really cares if they're the same price or more expensive than the old ones. Either way it's an unneeded expense, the only thing that matters is the magnitude, which is not really important to the authors argument.